Fractional Time Errors

[cj]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

Unreliable turf designations at NYRA


Based on the times, no way I'd call the Main turf soft today.


Both yielding

Isn't soft considered slower than yielding? If so I'd agree with NYRA on this one based on my worksheets and projections.

Upon further review, while I think the main was a little slower, it shouldn't have been called soft. I rated the inner a 5 and the main a 4 on the 1 to 10 scale.

[AltonKelsey]

Since soft is the most extreme designation, I reserve that for times that are well below par.



While todays times were on the slow side, there was nothing outrageous , and no evidence visually that soft would have been correct.



Since they have to post the condition BEFORE the races are run , I cut them slack, but leaving it that way in the chart is just obstinate.

[cj]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

Since soft is the most extreme designation, I reserve that for times that are well below par.



While todays times were on the slow side, there was nothing outrageous , and no evidence visually that soft would have been correct.



Since they have to post the condition BEFORE the races are run , I cut them slack, but leaving it that way in the chart is just obstinate.

Yep, that is same conclusion numerically as well. Like many things in this game course condition labeling methods are totally outdated.

[ubercapper]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

Since soft is the most extreme designation, I reserve that for times that are well below par.

While todays times were on the slow side, there was nothing outrageous , and no evidence visually that soft would have been correct.

Since they have to post the condition BEFORE the races are run , I cut them slack, but leaving it that way in the chart is just obstinate.

Course condition labeling includes times as well as how horses' hooves dig up and/or sink.

The chart callers in New York have decades of experience and, as stated earlier in the thread, can disagree with the official track designation for the purposes of the chart if they so choose.

YL - Yielding - Usually following some wet weather; horses' hooves dig up the course and divots are flying; times are slower
SF - Soft - Usually following prolonged wet weather; horses' hooves sink in and dig up the course; times are considerably slower.

[AltonKelsey]

I see they are at it again. Inner labled YLD when a winner went in 110 flat, and on the main one clocked in at 122.2



This is not my def of yld.


I think whoever is calling out the condition is using non standard definitions. I think GOOD would be much closer to accurate here.


Ok by me, I keep my own data, but not sure it helps form users.

[AltonKelsey]

From Equibase



GD - Good - The drying process continues, times improve and the track is approaching a FIRM condition. Fewer divots may be evident.
YL - Yielding - Usually following some wet weather; horses' hooves dig up the course and divots are flying; times are slower
SF - Soft - Usually following prolonged wet weather; horses' hooves sink in and dig up the course; times are considerably slower.







Using these defs, MAYBE you can make a case for calling this track yielding (I think I heard Andy say he thought GOOD was the case today).


All I know is years ago , they didn't use yielding unless is was really slow, not the race times we see here from the better horses at BEL. At least thats my recollection.

[ultracapper]

I'm not certain if this is an error or not, but it just looks funny and wonder if anyone with the ability could just take a look at it to confirm or alter.

September 16, 2018 7th at Los Alamitos

24.73 47.75 1:10.90 1:24.71 1:37.87

........ (23.02) (23.15) (13.81) (13.16)

That 1:10.90 just doesn't line up. The 13.81 to the 1/8th pole isn't unrealistic, and the leader was dragging his rear pretty noticeably by then, but it still looks kind of awkward. If somebody could take a look and really look at that split to the 1/4 pole, I'd be grateful.

Thanks in advance.

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

I'm not certain if this is an error or not, but it just looks funny and wonder if anyone with the ability could just take a look at it to confirm or alter.

September 16, 2018 7th at Los Alamitos

24.73 47.75 1:10.90 1:24.71 1:37.87

........ (23.02) (23.15) (13.81) (13.16)

That 1:10.90 just doesn't line up. The 13.81 to the 1/8th pole isn't unrealistic, and the leader was dragging his rear pretty noticeably by then, but it still looks kind of awkward. If somebody could take a look and really look at that split to the 1/4 pole, I'd be grateful.

Thanks in advance.

Whether it was correct or not, the filly that set these fractions stepped up in class today and won on the cutback. That 46.17 from 3/4 to 1/4 mile pole just screamed off the page, so much so I still wonder if it's correct.

[zawaaa]

Ultracapper,

there was a post by CJ directly referring to that race in this thread, here.

also, if this helps, the average times for the 8f races at Los Alamitos this year; and then, for comparison's sake, the race in question:

• All

23.80 -- 47.36 (23.56) -- 72.05 (24.69) -- 84.62 (12.57) -- 97.40 (12.78)

• 9/16 7th

24.73 -- 47.75 (23.02) -- 70.90 (23.15) -- 84.71 (13.81) -- 97.87 (13.16)

[rispa]

Oct. 18 - Laurel (Race 6)

Having a hard time believing the final time and the splits.

23.27, :46.31, 1:10.55, 1:35.63, 1:42.08 - 1 1/16 (2 turn route). I know it is an about distance there. But, about what? Track IS playing fast today, just not this fast!

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by zawaaa

Ultracapper,

there was a post by CJ directly referring to that race in this thread, here.

also, if this helps, the average times for the 8f races at Los Alamitos this year; and then, for comparison's sake, the race in question:

• All

23.80 -- 47.36 (23.56) -- 72.05 (24.69) -- 84.62 (12.57) -- 97.40 (12.78)

• 9/16 7th

24.73 -- 47.75 (23.02) -- 70.90 (23.15) -- 84.71 (13.81) -- 97.87 (13.16)

Too many posts to read. I missed CJs. Thanks for pointing that out.

[cj]

Originally Posted by rispa

Oct. 18 - Laurel (Race 6)

Having a hard time believing the final time and the splits.

23.27, :46.31, 1:10.55, 1:35.63, 1:42.08 - 1 1/16 (2 turn route). I know it is an about distance there. But, about what? Track IS playing fast today, just not this fast!

I'll check this one out tomorrow. Laurel is one of the new GPS tracks.

[cj]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

Too many posts to read. I missed CJs. Thanks for pointing that out.

Sorry I missed your post. Los Al had that happen a few times during the recent meet.

[cj]

Originally Posted by cj

I'll check this one out tomorrow. Laurel is one of the new GPS tracks.

I checked tonight, this one is accurate. The very long run up contributes to the fast time, as does the close proximity to the first turn which usually leads to a fast pace as jockeys try to get position.

[rispa]

CJ,





If you are willing to share the info, I'd be interested to know this race stacked up against the other routes on the card, how much faster/slower you have it. I try to do my own figures for Laurel, and this race for me seems way out of whack. Just my opinion.



Thanks in advance.